Path: ...!news.nobody.at!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@
Date: Wed, 8 May 2024 20:46:57 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 160
Message-ID: <v1h9uh$dca5$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v18e32$1vbql$1@dont-email.me> <v1avuv$2lks2$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1b7gl$2ndka$1@dont-email.me> <v1c2ng$9f73$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v1c43h$3168a$1@dont-email.me> <v1c6g2$9f72$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v1c7ph$31thl$2@dont-email.me> <v1c8ne$9f72$7@i2pn2.org>
 <v1c8s6$3242s$1@dont-email.me> <v1c9gn$9f73$5@i2pn2.org>
 <v1c9m6$325ls$1@dont-email.me> <v1d2kp$9f72$10@i2pn2.org>
 <v1doi3$3cndh$1@dont-email.me> <v1eaov$ca07$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v1edj0$3he4j$1@dont-email.me> <v1eo28$cp5r$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v1eokj$3nb4c$2@dont-email.me> <v1epbn$cp5s$7@i2pn2.org>
 <v1erj8$3o05s$1@dont-email.me> <v1etil$3o9rj$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1fo8o$dt8i$4@i2pn2.org> <v1gk7h$4imh$4@dont-email.me>
 <v1h8qu$flc1$3@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 09 May 2024 03:46:58 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a72ed5afac70d06aa4533361cc1053d1";
	logging-data="438597"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+2bKTUhuMwS5nRjpmGZZ3j"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:/61Zrte/YSUHKbGPGY5lVSy10dQ=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v1h8qu$flc1$3@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 7477

On 5/8/2024 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/8/24 3:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/8/2024 6:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/8/24 12:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/7/2024 10:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/7/2024 9:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/7/24 10:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/7/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/7/24 7:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/7/2024 5:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/7/24 1:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Once someone has definitely proven to not be telling the truth
>>>>>>>>>>> about any specific point it is correct to assume any other
>>>>>>>>>>> assertions about this same point are also false until evidence
>>>>>>>>>>> arises to the contrary.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Then I guess we can just go and ignore everything you have said.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> PERIOD.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this 
>>>>>>>>> point*
>>>>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this 
>>>>>>>>> point*
>>>>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this 
>>>>>>>>> point*
>>>>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this 
>>>>>>>>> point*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Message-ID: <v0ummt$2qov3$2@i2pn2.org>
>>>>>>>>> *When you interpret*
>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>  > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> *Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
>>>>>>>>> *stop running unless aborted by H*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> as *D NEVER simulated by H*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
>>>>>>>>> that would win a defamation case.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope, It is clear you don't understand the logic of qualifiers.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Prove it on this point*
>>>>>>> Exactly how can ALWAYS: ∀x be construed as NEVER: ∄x
>>>>>>
>>>>>> if there are no x.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x)  // ptr is pointer to int function
>>>>> 01 int D(ptr x)
>>>>> 02 {
>>>>> 03   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>>>> 04   if (Halt_Status)
>>>>> 05     HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>> 06   return Halt_Status;
>>>>> 07 }
>>>>> 08
>>>>> 09 int main()
>>>>> 10 {
>>>>> 11   H(D,D);
>>>>> 12 }
>>>>>
>>>>> The above template defines an infinite set of finite string H/D 
>>>>> pairs where each D(D) that is simulated by H(D,D) also calls this 
>>>>> same H(D,D).
>>>>>
>>>>> I have one concrete fully operational instance of H/D pairs so
>>>>> we know that more than zero of them exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can adapt this one concrete instance to be the 7 shown below and
>>>>> we can extrapolate the trend from there:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1st element of H/D pairs 1 step of D is simulated by H
>>>>> 2nd element of H/D pairs 2 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>>> 3rd element of H/D pairs 3 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>>>
>>>>> 4th element of H/D pairs 4 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>>> this begins the first recursive simulation at line 01
>>>>>
>>>>> 5th element of H/D pairs 5 steps of D are simulated by
>>>>> next step of the first recursive simulation at line 02
>>>>>
>>>>> 6th element of H/D pairs 6 steps of D are simulated by
>>>>> last step of the first recursive simulation at line 03
>>>>>
>>>>> 7th element of H/D pairs 7 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>>> this begins the second recursive simulation at line 01
>>>>
>>>> The one great thing that Mike did was confirm that HH can look
>>>> into all of the details of the internal state of its simulated
>>>> DD machine and still be a computable function. I suspected
>>>> that I might be, yet Mike confirmed that I am correct about this.
>>>>
>>>> That does not work in reverse though. A computable function is
>>>> is not allowed to look at its caller.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Right, and thus D can change itself to call the H deciding it, and 
>>> thus needs to be defined to call just one H.
>>>
>>> Also, the question for H isn't the behavior of its caller, but the 
>>> behavior of the machine described by its input.
>>>
>>> There is nothing in that definition that EXCLUDES that machine 
>>> calling H (though, due to the structure of Turing Machines, that 
>>> needs to be another copy of that machine, as the Linz proof does).
>>>
>>> Your problem is you don't seem to understand the basic English words 
>>> of the problem, maybe because you logic is based on lying and thus 
>>> needs to avoid being to tied to actual definitions.
>>
>> *The above is all weasel words that ignore the point*
>> *The above is all weasel words that ignore the point*
>> *The above is all weasel words that ignore the point*
> 
> Nope, just proves my point.
> 
>>
>> Am am only paying attention to your reply to this post @@@
>> I am not going to sift through all of your weasel words
> 
> Then I will just continue to point out that you are just ignoring that 
> your claim have be
> 
> 
>>
>> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x)  // ptr is pointer to int function
>> 01 int D(ptr x)
>> 02 {
>> 03   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>> 04   if (Halt_Status)
>> 05     HERE: goto HERE;
>> 06   return Halt_Status;
>> 07 }
>> 08
>> 09 int main()
>> 10 {
>> 11   H(D,D);
>> 12 }
>>
>> Any H/D pair matching the above template where D(D) is simulated
>> by the same H(D,D) that it calls cannot possibly reach past its own
>> line 03. Simple software engineering verified fact.
>>
> 
> Proven wrong, and not refuted, so just shows that you are
> 

Liar Liar pants on fire !!!
Liar Liar pants on fire !!!
Liar Liar pants on fire !!!


-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer